1 APHC010165712023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8571/2023 Between: 1. MALLELA NADIPI MUTYALAPPA, , S/O.LATE MALLELA NADIMAMIDAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.2-196-4, SC COLONY, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI (ANANTHAPURAMU) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU, SRI SATHYA SAI (ANANTHAPURAMU) DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI (ANANTHAPURAMU) DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI (ANANTHAPURAMU) DISTRICT. 5. HARIJANA MUTHYALU, S/O.HARIJANA CHINNA MUTHYALAPPA, R/O.D.NO.2-135, VENKATREDDY PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 6. HARIJANA CHINNA PEDDANNA, S/O.CHINNA NIDIMAMIDAPPA, R/O.D.NO.2-203, VENKATREDDY PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 7. HARIJANA CHENAKAYALA ANJINAPPA, S/O.NARAYANAPPA, R/O.D.NO.20134, VENKATREDDY PALLI VILLAGE AND POST, 2 PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 8. HARIJANA MUTHYALAPPA, S/O.HARIJANA SEENAPPA, R/O.D.NO.2-206, VENKATREDDY PALLI VILLAGE 8S POST, PENUKONDA MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in mutating the name of the respondents 5 to 8 in the revenue record by deleting the petitioner name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.5.60 cents in sy.No.1121-12 of Venkata Reddy palli Village, PenukondaMandal, Ananthapuramu District, without notice nor passed any orders same being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution and also unfair, unjust and unreasonable against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the web land to an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in sy.No.1121-12 of VenkatareddyPalli Village, PenukondaMandal, Ananthapuramu District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not dispossess the petitioner by restore the name of the petitioner in the web land to an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in sy.No.1121- 12 of VenkatareddyPalli Village, PenukondaMandal, Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon'ble court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. PONNADA SREE VYAS 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.8571 of 2023 The Court made the following ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in mutating the name of the respondents 5 to 8 in the revenue record by deleting the petitioner name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.5.60 cents in sy.No.1121-12 of Venkata Reddy palli Village, PenukondaMandal, Ananthapuramu District, without notice nor passed any orders same being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution and also unfair, unjust and unreasonable against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the web land to an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in sy.No.1121-12 of VenkatareddyPalli Village, PenukondaMandal, Ananthapuramu District and pass…” 2. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in mutating the name of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the revenue records by deleting the petitioner’s name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.5.60 cents in Sy.No.1121-12 of Venkatareddy Palli Village, Punukonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner has approached the respondent No.4-Tahsildar for grant of DKT Patta. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 has granted DKT Patta vide DAR Dis.No.107/78/D, dated 10.12.1977, in favour of the petitioner’s father to an extent of Ac.5.50 cents in Sy.No.1121-12 of Venkatareddy Palli village, Punukonda Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. Since then, the petitioner, along with his father, has been in possession of the property, after the demise of the father of the petitioner, the same was devolved upon the petitioner through inheritance. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would submit that the subject property of the Writ Petition was assigned to the unofficial respondents in the year 1988 vide proceedings DAR Dis.No.193 of 1997 dated 06.06.1988 and the unofficial respondent is mutated in the revenue records and the contention raised by the petitioner is false at no point of time the petitioner’s father name was not mutated in the revenue records and hence, prays to dismiss the Writ Petition. 6. Admittedly, there is a dispute in between the petitioner and unofficial respondents and both are claiming the same property. Both the petitioner and un-official respondents are claiming right basing on the DKT Patta. 7. It is the main contention of the petitioner herein,that his father name was mutated in the revenue records.Subsequently, his name was deleted by the respondent No.4 and mutated the names of unofficial respondents in the revenue records. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that a procedure is enjoined under Rule 19(1) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, as per the said rule, a notice has to be issued under form-8 and no such notice was issued before mutating the name of the respondent and the recording the name of the unofficial respondent is contrary to the Judgment in Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal reported in 2007(6) ALD 248 (FB). However, it is prayed to dispose the case on merits. 8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.4-Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondents, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 9. With the above said directions, the Writ petition is disposed of. The respondent No.4/Tahsildhar shall make an endeavor for the disposal of the 5 matter and for conducting enquiry within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.01.2026 SSA